Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 11, 2017

RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; Plaintiff,
v.
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, and ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation Defendants. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, Counterclaimants,
v.
RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation, et al., Counterdefendants.

          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, RICHARD J. POCKER, WILLIAM ISAACSON, KAREN DUNN, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN, BEKO O. REBLITZ-RICHARDSON, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, THOMAS S. HIXSON, JOHN A. POLITO, NITIN JINDAL, DORIAN DALEY, DEBORAH K. MILLER, JAMES C. MAROULIS, ORACLE CORPORATION, Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation

          ORACLE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF THE APPENDICES TO THE PARTIES' JOINT LETTER TO THE COURT RE: ORACLE'S PROPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL

          Hon. Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge

         Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order governing confidentiality of documents entered by the Court on May 18, 2015, ECF No. 58 (“Protective Order”), Local Rules 10-5(b), and Rules 5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants and Counterclaimants Oracle International Corporation and Oracle America Inc. (together “Oracle”) respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file under seal portions of the Appendices to the Parties' Joint Letter to the Court re: Oracle's Proposed Motion to Compel (ECF No. 492). Redacted versions of these documents were filed on May 11, 2017. See ECF Nos. 492-1, 492-2. Unredacted versions of these documents will be subsequently filed under seal with the Court and linked to the filing of this Motion. See ECF No. 221 (Order re: sealing procedures).

         Oracle requests that the Court seal the redacted portions of the Appendices because they contain materials that have been designated as “Highly Confidential Information - Attorneys' Eyes Only” by the Parties under the terms of the Protective Order. The Protective Order states, “Counsel for any Designating Party may designate any Discovery Material as ‘Confidential Information' or ‘Highly Confidential Information - Attorneys' Eyes Only' under the terms of this Protective Order only if such counsel in good faith believes that such Discovery Material contains such information and is subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The designation by any Designating Party of any Discovery Material as ‘Confidential Information' or ‘Highly Confidential Information - Attorneys' Eyes Only' shall constitute a representation that an attorney for the Designating Party reasonably believes there is a valid basis for such designation.” Protective Order ¶ 2 (emphasis supplied).

         Oracle submits Appendix A under seal pursuant to the Protective Order based on Rimini's representation that it reasonably believes there is a valid basis under the Protective Order for its confidentiality designations. Because the material was designated by Rimini, Oracle is not in a position to provide further justification for why filing this document publicly would cause Rimini harm sufficient to show good cause. Oracle does not independently contend that the document, or the material it contains, are subject to such protection, but makes this request pursuant to ¶ 14 of the Protective Order.

         Oracle submits Appendix B under seal pursuant to its own request. Appendix B contains confidential correspondence between Oracle and the United States Copyright Office that has been produced to Rimini in the course of this litigation. Oracle believes there is a valid basis under the Protective Order for its confidentiality designations, as the correspondence submitted under seal contains non-public and commercially sensitive information concerning Oracle's copyright registrations and software licenses and its interactions with the Copyright Office.

         Oracle respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file under seal portions of the documents discussed above.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         Pending before this Court is Defendants and Counterclaimants Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation's (collectively “Oracle”) Motion to Seal Portions of the Appendices to the Parties' Joint Letter to the Court re: Oracle's Proposed Motion to Compel (ECF Nos. 492-1, 492-2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides broad discretion for a trial court to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Having considered Oracle's Motion to Seal and for good cause existing:

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Oracle's Motion to Seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the redacted portions of the Appendices to the Parties' Joint Letter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.